Why are comparisons being made to nVidia architectures?
A 750Ti is still more or less matches a PS4 to this day, almost nothing has changed, see the example of Control ..When ps4 launched the fastest single gpu was almost 3x its performance.
Isn't Control an outlier though regards its PS4 performance. Heck, it performs worse on PS4 than the lower power XB1 when it hits its stutters. For any such comparison, you need a broad sampling, so what percentage of games on 750Ti match PS4?A 750Ti is still more or less matches a PS4 to this day, almost nothing has changed, see the example of Control ...
A 750Ti is still more or less matches a PS4 to this day, almost nothing has changed, see the example of Control ..
, Digitalfoundry recommended a GTX 950 for matching console settings at 30 FPS.
Digitalfoundry also had worse performance on an i3 4130 and GTX 750 Ti in Rise of the Tomb Raider and DOOM 2016, though they never retested those games in DX12 and Vulkan.
Why are comparisons being made to nVidia architectures?
PS has been patched, a lot better now. Not sure how it compares to XO now though. E.g. Don't know if the XO was also patched.Isn't Control an outlier though regards its PS4 performance. Heck, it performs worse on PS4 than the lower power XB1 when it hits its stutters. For any such comparison, you need a broad sampling, so what percentage of games on 750Ti match PS4?
A 750Ti is still more or less matches a PS4 to this day, almost nothing has changed, see the example of Control ..
Also, there is a non linear scaling between GPU compute power and fps, you might think you would need 2X the GPU compute power to push from 30fps to 60fps, but that is simply not true, you will often end up requiring upwards of 3X or more. You will require more and more compute power if you factor in the higher quality settings on the PC. Same goes for CPU compute power as well.
This is not true at all and is why DF has stopped comparing them.
A 760 is more then a match for the PS4, often doing better, even nowadays. A 670 is outperforming it most of the time. DF doesn't do any pc to console comparisons anymore.
Yes and a 750Ti and 950 aren't worlds apart either. About the same ballpark performance for the most, and both aren't really gaming products in my eyes, a 960 or a 760 at least for the time.
.
They do they just stopped trying to find the slowest GPU required to match the PS4 as it has been steadily increasing.
The GTX 950 was released two years after the PS4 and Xbox One. Both are good cases because they were popular recommendations for budget PCs that would still outperform the PS4.
The 950 is a fair bit better than the 750 Ti across plenty of modern games.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2504?vs=2503
The GTX 950 was released two years after the PS4 and Xbox One. Both are good cases because they were popular recommendations for budget PCs that would still outperform the PS4.
This is kind of expected. Newer games are levering things that NV GPUs weren't particularly good at up until Pascal. Namely the growing popularity of Async Compute and other features that AMD had in GCN for a long time but got limited to no use in the PC space until Mantle and now Vulkan and Dx12 came out.
Basically there's no way for a 6 series or 7 series NV GPU to compete on even footing in newer games that are leveraging those more advanced features. Basically more power is required since those cards cannot leverage those advanced features. In games that don't use them on console however, I'd imagine the old comparisons to still be somewhat valid.
A more interesting comparison is to see how well newer games compare to the 7850 which shares those features. But then that also depends on those features being exposed on that card in Vulkan or Dx12.
Regards,
SB
And what's the point exactly ? What was the price a the PC equivalent in 2013 ?
Why absolutly wanting to downplay the ps4 in the console section ? Honest question i'm curious.